What you wrote there has no correlation at all with what I was responding to originally. If you think "free migration" is a good thing, everything you wrote above was probably just written to make it sound like you're impartial on the issue and willing to look at it from both sides. Free means free, no walls, no checks, no balances, NOTHING. Everybody in the world can come and go as they please. That is completely insane.

Okay, let me explain/clarify.

I do think free migration is a good thing. I do accept and understand your view that it's completely insane. There is a fear that free migration lets everyone from poor countries pour in unrestrained and will come to rich countries, speak their own language, bring in their own gang-warfare, suck off the welfare and make rich countries poor. I think this is a risk that needs to be managed; I accept that managing this risk seems entirely at odds with "free migration". But, I don't think this is what happens in real live, as evidenced by the EU experiment. If people migrated as willingly as this, when the EU opened its borders, half the Czech republic would've migrated to greece to get their insane social benefits. All businesses would've moved operations outside Greece to take advantage of lower tax regimes in different parts of the EU. French and Italian crime gangs would've expanded their territory into Belgium and the Netherlands. ... but that didn't happen. ... so that's why I think free migration could work. Again, I appreciate you disagree this is an entirely subjective viewpoint and one which seems to be a small minority in current western society.

Now, all that said - I think migration policy should be determined by the population. That's what government is for. Extreme views (like mine) should be taken into account, tempered by the democratic process, and integrated into a policy which is accepted by the general population. In Australia, Canada and the USA that has resulted in a policy where we let a certain amount of people in each year, and select them based on their need.

Once that policy is set, I think countries should enforce it in a way which is effective. And I don't think "that person made it into our border, but that one didn't" is a good reason to preference one individual's right to stay over another. Therefore, even though I think in an ideal world we would be able to come and go as we please; I think in a world where we've agreed that only certain people are allowed to come and go; we should have the controls in place to ensure that whose who aren't allowed to come and go are prevented from coming, and efficiently kicked out when they're found.

Hence my questions above.

Walls are pretty easy to get over. Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a razor-wire fence, and tighten legislation so any illegal migrant is stripped of all their assets, any landlord who rents property to an illegal migrant or employer found to be paying an illegal migrant is automatically fined $50,000, the illegal migrant's fingerprints and DNA taken and added to a list of people never allowed to enter the US legally again, then driven directly back to the border and put on the other side of the fence?

Is the wall part of a multi-faceted immigration policy, or is it just a panacea that's now being paid for by US Taxpayers; not Mexico as promised?

Walls are pretty easy to get over. Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a razor-wire fence, and tighten legislation so any illegal migrant is stripped of all their assets, any landlord who rents property to an illegal migrant or employer found to be paying an illegal migrant is automatically fined $50,000, the illegal migrant's fingerprints and DNA taken and added to a list of people never allowed to enter the US legally again, then driven directly back to the border and put on the other side of the fence?

Is the wall part of a multi-faceted immigration policy, or is it just a panacea that's now being paid for by US Taxpayers; not Mexico as promised?

My belief for a long time has been if we were serious about immigration issues, employers, landlords, etc. like you mentioned above would be harshly punished for dealing with illegals. That's in a logical, law abiding world where common sense prevails.

However we live in la-la land, where folks on a particular side of the political spectrum have set up so called "sanctuary cities". They've essentially setup a red carpet for every criminal element to flood into their cities with no worry about the laws on the books being enforced. The reason for this is two fold;
1. So that they may feel morally superior about themselves when they personally will likely never face real repercussions for their decisions. That's for the plebs.
2. To expand their voter base. They know they cannot fool enough real Americans to go along with their erosion of our institutions and rights, so they'll import in masses of folks who do not share traditional American values. They know these folks will have no problem going along with revoking the 2nd Amendment, destroying state's rights, etc.

[QUOTE=NickyC;24217532
However we live in la-la land, where folks on a particular side of the political spectrum have set up so called "sanctuary cities". They've essentially setup a red carpet for every criminal element to flood into their cities with no worry about the laws on the books being enforced. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's the sort of bullshit policy that's (IMHO) worse than either of the extremes.

I'm betting the impediment to getting that changed isn't just idiots who support it because it surreptitiously allows for free immigration (which I don't support because it prevents you from passing corresponding laws that deal with the problems that free immigration causes) but because of companies in those "sanctuary cities" that do very well (economically) by hiring illegal immigrants at 1/10th of the cost of hiring US citizens.

The tl;dr version is we elected Tony Abbot in about 2013 to be our prime minister, and he made good on his election promise that "If the Coalition is elected, no-one who arrives illegally by boat will receive permanent residency,". Our illegal boat arrivals reduced from 20,000 individuals in 2013 to ZERO in 2017 & 2018. News Article

Australia has a moat, so we didn't need to build a wall; but without corresponding "kick the bastards out" policy, the moat was ineffective.

The tl;dr version is we elected Tony Abbot in about 2013 to be our prime minister, and he made good on his election promise that "If the Coalition is elected, no-one who arrives illegally by boat will receive permanent residency,". Our illegal boat arrivals reduced from 20,000 individuals in 2013 to ZERO in 2017 & 2018. News Article

Australia has a moat, so we didn't need to build a wall; but without corresponding "kick the bastards out" policy, the moat was ineffective.

1. So that they may feel morally superior about themselves when they personally will likely never face real repercussions for their decisions. That's for the plebs.

Interesting point, and one that could be debated and even possibly agreed on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickyC

2. To expand their voter base. They know they cannot fool enough real Americans to go along with their erosion of our institutions and rights, so they'll import in masses of folks who do not share traditional American values. They know these folks will have no problem going along with revoking the 2nd Amendment, destroying state's rights, etc.

That's just ridiculous. Do you really, honestly, believe it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickyC

So yes, the wall is only part of the answer but it's badly needed.

Did you read the Cato analysis of it, and why it really won't do anything at all and is just a big waste of resources including the money?

xQx or SakhirM4 I am curious what thing or things you "appreciated" from that post? Do you really believe Democrats are against the wall so they can get more votes, or that it's actually a valuable thing that'll actually accomplish something?

Interesting point, and one that could be debated and even possibly agreed on.

That's just ridiculous. Do you really, honestly, believe it?

Did you read the Cato analysis of it, and why it really won't do anything at all and is just a big waste of resources including the money?

xQx or SakhirM4 I am curious what thing or things you "appreciated" from that post? Do you really believe Democrats are against the wall so they can get more votes, or that it's actually a valuable thing that'll actually accomplish something?

I mostly appreciated the comment that it is only part of the solution, but that it is needed. Where I live, illegal immigrants come across the Rio Grande every day.

It's not easy getting on a plane to Australia. I'm pretty sure you need to have a pre-booked return flight and a valid visa. So people who come here by plane are 'more desirable' in that they've passed the test to become a tourist. We do have a lot of people who overstay tourist visas; which probably is a huge multiple of the number of illegal immigrants who arrive(d) here by boat. But to be blunt, it's not talked about because they're mostly white. It's also a lot easier to kick them out when they're found, because we just put them on their pre-booked flight home. - or if they come here and ask for asylum, they're in a secure part of the airport so they basically camp there until their request has been processed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

xQx or SakhirM4 I am curious what thing or things you "appreciated" from that post? Do you really believe Democrats are against the wall so they can get more votes, or that it's actually a valuable thing that'll actually accomplish something?

Yup, clearly I don't agree with NickyC's assertions that all immigrants want to take away your guns, leech your welfare and destroy the states rights, or that the reason the democrats oppose this just to get votes from bleeding-heart lefties I don't doubt that some immigrants or democrats (edit: and some Republicans...) fit that description though.
However, I do agree/appreciate that the "sanctuary cities" scheme is bullshit,
that "if we were serious about immigration issues, employers, landlords, etc. like you mentioned above would be harshly punished for dealing with illegals. That's in a logical, law abiding world where common sense prevails." and that a physical barrier along your border is "is only part of the answer".

I'm yet to be convinced that the barrier needs to be a wall, and couldn't be much cheaper (ie. a fence), and still not sure if it's "badly needed" or just a every expensive gesture to the rest of the world that America is no longer open to illegal immigrants.

I do think having a barrier is more effective than not having a barrier.

Interesting point, and one that could be debated and even possibly agreed on.

That's just ridiculous. Do you really, honestly, believe it?

Did you read the Cato analysis of it, and why it really won't do anything at all and is just a big waste of resources including the money?

xQx or SakhirM4 I am curious what thing or things you "appreciated" from that post? Do you really believe Democrats are against the wall so they can get more votes, or that it's actually a valuable thing that'll actually accomplish something?

I mostly appreciated the comment that it is only part of the solution, but that it is needed. Where I live, illegal immigrants come across the Rio Grande every day.

I thought you were living near the Colorado River, not off the Rio Grande

Regardless of how you feel on it, I have to imagine we'd all agree that drug addicted Americans are a gigantic problem in all of this. If it wasn't for the need to fuel their self destructive degenerate actions, we wouldn't have the horrors that come along with the drug trade.

Legalize it, tax the crap out of it, and if people want to throw their lives away in a drug induced haze go right ahead.

Regardless of how you feel on it, I have to imagine we'd all agree that drug addicted Americans are a gigantic problem in all of this. If it wasn't for the need to fuel their self destructive degenerate actions, we wouldn't have the horrors that come along with the drug trade.

Legalize it, tax the crap out of it, and if people want to throw their lives away in a drug induced haze go right ahead.

This is something we can agree on, but also a reason I don't' think the wall will be effective in stemming the flow of drugs (or illegal guns etc). The US has spent over a trillion dollars going on 4 decades now to fight the "War on Drugs" and they are as prevalent as ever. So are the problems created by them. As long as there's a huge market here for drugs, I don't see a wall stopping this. If the DEA/US government thought it would, I would think a complete wall solution would've come up long ago.

Also, as long as a much better life is available here in the US, it won't stop people trying to get out of the hellish situations to get here.

"Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border did not come from security analysts following years of study or through evidence that a wall would reduce illegal immigration. Amazingly, for something so central to the current U.S. president, the wall came about as a “mnemonic device” thought up by a pair of political consultants to remind Donald Trump to talk about illegal immigration."

Regardless of how you feel on it, I have to imagine we'd all agree that drug addicted Americans are a gigantic problem in all of this. If it wasn't for the need to fuel their self destructive degenerate actions, we wouldn't have the horrors that come along with the drug trade.

Legalize it, tax the crap out of it, and if people want to throw their lives away in a drug induced haze go right ahead.

A huge problem no doubt. The problem is much bigger than a wall when it comes to the drug trade. The wall wonít stop legal purchases and manufacturing of pharmaceutical epedemic,, drug tunnels being built, smuggling via cars/trucks at legal ports of entries, catapults of drugs going over the wall (Trumpís words), boats/subs filled with drugs docking/beaching in California, the list goes on.